View Single Post
  #183  
Old August 4th 05, 04:16 PM
Warren Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Allan9" wrote in message
.. .
Well Warren all I can say to you is bid a QA job and try to correct what
you perceive as a problem.


Hello AL? We don't have "QA bids" in most places because the
traffic-dodging cowards that work in QA are all "permanent" staff. At my
facility, I am of neither the correct gender or racial profile to be a QA
"specialist" anyway. Just wondering, as a C90 QA demigod for four years,
how much ATC currency did you have to maintain? Down here, no one in our QA
office has worked air traffic in over fourteen years.

If you choose not to then you are part of the problem.


What problem? The "problem" that Potomac wouldn't work this aircraft
contrary to SOP and LOA on a direct routing through busy terminal airspace?
Or am I part of the overall "problem" that caused you to selflessly take a
QA/staff/management bid? Very altruistic of you. I'm sure that like all
the other strap hangers and feather merchants, you went ATC staff because
you are one of the "good" people who "care", and not at all because you
sucked as a controller and were facing 25 years in a career you couldn't
handle.

The phrase you choose to exploit was meant to say in a nice way that if you
required remedial training it would be handled inhouse.


Which phrase, said in a "nice" way, am I exploiting?

You're the guy giving lip service to the user about the "situation being
resolved." The simple truth is that in this instance of the aircraft being
piloted by Mike, which started this thread, there is no QA issue. Not one.
The ZDC controller failed to get Potomac Tracon to buy off on a route
through busy terminal airspace. That's every day ATC. It a tactical issue.
Michelle suggested to Mike that he call QA at Potomac because Potomac was
somehow at fault for not accepting the route, aka "refusing" to handle the
flight.. I pointed out to her what a waste of time this would be in this
situation, to which she responded that her calls had resulted in discipline
of a "rude" and just "plain wrong" controller. You and I both know that
what Michelle posts is bunk. Her calls probably didn't make it out of the
Potomac QA office. Remember the ADIZ? Potomac QA is likely buried in
paperwork for incidents, OE's and OD's stemming from the mess around DC. I
seriously doubt that they have any time at all to track down "rude"
controllers and give them days off for bad (but safe and procedural)
service.

And by the way, if I required "remedial" training, where else would it be
handled besides "inhouse"? Yall send your 70 Chicago controllers somewhere
for remedial? C90 too small to self-train, or what?


All the user would need to know was the situation was resolved. If you
think that's bureaucratic there's nothing I could say to you.


Indeed.


There are a lot of people that "care". Based on your we-they response I'd
say you are part of the problem
Al


What problem?

Chip, ZTL